Obviously... but that doesn't change the fact that IBM may be liable for leaking the secret in the first place.
If you leak some company's secret, you can be in shit, even if the company can no longer control that information once it's out.. YOU are still responsible for the leak, and will pay.
because we don't KNOW what code they are talking about, and we don't know whether or not it's actually for sure in the unix code that is out there... we don't know if they worked on somethign internally with IBM as part of the project and IBM leaked it, or what.
Isn't much harder? On the contrary it's affected by FAR more things
What if you are behind a NAT box or proxy that won't allow you to use most VPN software? What if you don't have remote superuser access? etc..etc... etc...
This is so you can mount anything you have ssh shell access to... that is a WORLD different than setting up a ssh/ppp vpn.
As for "network adminsitrators" not liking it.. if we don't like it, we don't let you VPN into our secure netowrks in the first place.
SUre..... but if that "entire world" Is.. say..CHINA and the rest of southeast asia.. it's not exactly a little world, is it.
This is getting out of hand.. the point is that the only thing that binds people to recognizing the same authority with regards to IP address allocation is the desire to interoprate, and not being in your own " little world" as you put it.
If a large enough region feelt that they were not getting what they needed to do what they wanted, ignoring those allocations would be a possibility. Yes, it woudl confine them.. but let's get real hypothetical:
Forget IPv6 for a minute. Let's say that China, India, and the rest of southeast asia run out of IP addresses, and the regulatory bodies are too slow and beurocratic, and basically refuse to give them more. So let's say they take a few class A spaces that are currently reserved or not in use, and the ISPs in the region agree on how to route them, and start using them. Now, all of southeast asia can use these new addresses to internetwork.. the rest of the world is just refusing ot use it. Now, a major ISP in the US and Europe might say "You know what, fuck it, nobody else is using it.. I'm gonna recognize that route, and deal with it. I can always change it later"... and so on. Eventually, it becomes in use.
Yes, of course, that's unlikely... but the fact is... we only recognize these authorities so long as they are useful to us, and if they aren't, we can start recognizign one that is. Fundamentally DNS works.. aside from everyone wanting a.com during the boom, which was an artificial demand, there was tons of DNS space, and no real REASON to fork off an alternate DNS sysetm.. the same goes for routes.. we are getting tighter, but still have room to grow, and things can be rearranged as necessary.
If it's not proper, feel free to start your own search engine, eh?
Google didn't abuse monopoly power to get where they are; they have not in any way coerced or threatened any other search engine, they simply made a search system that was innovative, unique, and desirable to people. They didn't rest their success on marketing, or anything else but pure technological innovation.
Now, I don't think google can do no wrong, they are a company, they have a bottom line... but so far, the reason they are on top is because google provides the results we want. EVery other search engine, if you don't remember, provided CRAP for links, either irrelevant, or paid placements.
Pagerank isnt' patented, is it? Got a patent number? I'd like to read how it works. I thought the pagerank formula was secret...
They feel this way because google is so popular that, with some businesses online, google can make or break you. I have a friend who has a business, and how much money he makes in a month is directly related to his pagerank. Now, he understands that google re-indexes all the time, and that things are tweaked all the time, and that google owes him nothing... but in the end, it's still important to him what his pagerank is, and he will do what he has to do in order to get that number higher.
Perhaps Novell knew the diminished value of their UNIX rights, and figured selling licensing rights to Caldera (SCO) would make more sense? All they did was retain their own copyrights, so they can ultimately still license it to someone else, and work on unix stuff on their own without fear.
As for those rights.. if IBM suddently held those rights, by acquiring them from Novell, they would still be in court, as this is about a contract violation.
Well, it's not that simple either... There are several ways this can go.
IF this comes down to patents, which is unlikely, then every copy of linux using the patented method would be in violation, and SCO could force everyone to stop using that method (in theory, anyway). This is highly unlikely, and they haven't mentioned patents yet. Furthermore, if it was about patents, there would be no reason to keep it secret before trial.. as their methods would be protected no matter what.
If it comes down to Copyright, IBM would pay damages, but the rest of the world would not be guilty of anything; pretend for a minute it's not Linux, but some version of OS/2. Would everyone who IBM sold OS/2 to have to stop using it or face legal action? Hardly. OF course, linux being free, it's a bit different.. but fundamentally, it's the same. And I'm sure the community would happily re-write the offending section, or find some code that pre-dates it and work from that, to be fair.
What is most likely, and what SCO seems to be saying, is this is trade-secret stuff. The thing about trade secret is, it only applies to secrets. That's what the NDAs and other contracts are for... so if IBM leaked proprietary methods (NOT patents... just thigns where two parties agree to keep it a secret) into the linux kernel, then they violated a contract... and they will pay damages. However, again, the rest of the community faces no threat. Trade secret laws are NOT patent laws, they don't afford you protection of something indefinately.. they only let you keep somethign a secret. If it's in the linux kernel, it's just not a secret anymore. If you leak a trade secret, say the formula for Coca-Cola, to usenet, you are gonna be in deep shit, trade secret laws will down on you, but coke has no way to stop the world from knowing about their formula now, and can't prevent someone from using it.. that's why they KEEP IT A SECRET... made in parts by separate companies, mixed at the factory, with the forumla only known to a couple people, and the files locked in some super secret vault guarded by alligators.
Linus, and anyone else, who wants to compare the SCO code (Copywritten, possibly but unlikely full of SCO's "secrets") to linux (which anyone and his dog can see anytime with no hassle) need to sign an NDA. Why?
The same reason that sco hasn't told us what code is infringing. If we put aside the fact that SCO's unix products are all the worst crap I've ever had to use, and that it's extremely doubtful they had any secrets, and just assume they DID have some secret method in there that had some value...
They can't just say "They stole our scheduler code!, on lines 12345 to 12500 of the 2.4.15 kernel!" Because... then everyone would KNOW The secret, and it would not be a secret anymore.
IT's *exactly* like saying InterNIC doesn't control DNS, and it's true.
The reason nobody used the alternative DNS servers was because there was no real NEED or DEMAND for them. They didn't really fill a void.. they represented more pain than they were worth.
Now, let's say hypothetically China has some political issue with the DNS system... they could start.china, run their own root servers, have everyone in the country use them, and maybe it WOULD be used, because it fills a real honest NEED . Yes I know they have their own ccTLD.. this is just theory.
IF we really NEEDED to supersede what ICANN was doing, we could.
Intercepting cellular phone calls is legal in canada; our governmetn wasn't so naieve as to consider something broadcast over public airwaves with no encryption "private".
With digital this changes of course.
You will find the only country that bans listening to cellular phone calls, and bans selling scanners that allow those calls to be listeend to, is the United States
Because you can selectively enforce patents, you cannot sue for damages if the party was not aware they were infringing on your patent. You can of course set the terms goign forward they must adhere to, or get them to stop using it, or whatever.. but they can't exactly SUE linus for infringing on their patents withotu first making sure he is aware of what patents he is infringing on, and suggesting a remedy.
You can't find someone who has been using your patent, unknowingly, for 10 years then sue him for 10 years worth of damages, it doesn't work that way.
When you file a patent, you have to cite prior art... which is things related to what you are doing, in order to show how yours is different. Usuually these are references to other patents, but other stuff can go in there too.
Now, if it is shown you LIED on your prior art declaration.. and you KNEW of others donig the same thing as yours, and left it out... your patent can be invalited.
On the other hand, if it merely turns out that some shepherd in khazakstan did something a year before you and never told anyone... my understandign is that won't invalidate your patent. You may not be able to enforce said patent on the shepherd... but your patent may still stand.
Yes, technically Novell may still be the actual copyright & patent holder.. but they DID license those to SCO, who has the ability to re-license all over the place.
Whether that boils down SCO having the right to enforce those patents and whatnot is another matter, and depends on the language of the contract, which we all don't have, so it's silly to speculate on.
What is clear is SCO had the right to relicense some unix stuff, and they of course have the right to enforce the terms of those licenses.
Whether or not they can attack other parties is a separate issue.
Linus doesn't sell linux. HE doesn't market it. He does kernel development, and his name is on it.. that's all.
Why shouldn't he be apathetic? SCO is getting far more attention than they deserve out of this.. at least in terms of the fear they are causing. There is NO WAY this case will succeed.. the absolute worst case will be IBM did something wrong, and IBM pays damages. No judge is going to smash linux.
What does linus have to fear? Can you imagine how much legal support Linus himself would get if sco tried to sue him personally? Just for what it represents, ever damn linux geek on earth would be ready to contribute to the defense fund, not to mention every linux company on earth. So far sco has ONLY SUED IBM, and have made only threatening vague statements and threats about their "Intellectual Property" to everyone else. Saying they had a contract with IBM that IBM has violated is one thing.. all the other vague shit they are claiming is something else entirely.
Linus has ALWAYS been apathetic. He has always mainted the world can do what it wants with linux.. he did it for fun. He doens't get too into the politics of it. He is a smart programmer, and a celebrity... but his life isn't riding on the success or faulure of linux. He isn't Bill Gates.
No, it would not. It has never been "viri" other than by those who mistakenly think it's supposed to be that way, in MODERN times.
Latin already had a word viri, but it was the nominative plural not of virus (slime, poison, or venom), but of vir (man). And although there actually is a viri form for virus, it's the genitive singular, not the nominative plural.
This apparently invariant use of virus as a genitive singular may also imply that it's 4th declension, as some scholars believe.
The crucial problem here is that, classically speaking, there appears to be no recorded use of virus in the plural. It was a 2nd declension noun ending in -us, which is rather common, but it was also a neuter, which is rather rare. I could only come up with three such 2nd declension neuters: virus (some poison), pelagus (the sea, usually poetically), and vulgus (the crowd). None appear to admit plurals. Perhaps this is because they are mass nouns, not count nouns.
Technically, nobody "OWNS" Ip addresses; it is a convention we all adhere to and everything works together.
If, say, China just took a few class A spaces belonging to companies they don't care about in the US, and started using them internally, and even if a few other countries started agreeing with them, there would be no problem. As long as you don't go announcing routes to others in violation of how they want to do things, you are fine.
Nothing at the IANA forces anyone to use a certain address; they don't controll routing.. they just say who owns what, and those with the power to route defer to that to decide if they should do something or not.
And it should be.. why should they be forced to use ancient and expensive technologies on the back end?
This isn't even super high tech or anything.. it's just that phone companies have a level of service to provide, and making big changes takes big planning.
you'll see that if you upload, you get faster downloads; this is not because of how your client works, but how other clients work. Clients exchange bits on a one-for-one basis when they both don't have the full file.
This means that once you have the full file, you just upload to people, as you don't need any parts.. but as long as a client needs chunks, it only sends a chunk when it receives one (sort of). The effect is exactly what is desired.
The reason throttling is in there in new clients is because network situations are often assymetric, and you NEED to be able to somewhat control how much bandwidth is used, in either direction, to get optimal use. If you firewall off your uploads, your downloads wsill suck in bittorrent.
No.. Bittorrent is a way to increase file transfer speeds through cooperation, and has nothing to do with "file sharing".
The thing is, as much as we say "napster could have been used to send legal files" we all know it's BULLSHIT. Sure, it could.. but it's primary purpose, and primary effect, was to help people break the law. The *reality* was that a great many people used it to break the law. The same goes for most other file sharing services.
In this case, we have bittorrent, which is NOT a filesharing service, just a way to to get faster downloads if you want to distribute something.. and that's all it should be. There is no way anyone can blame bittorrent for all the warez activities, as nothing in it's makeup even remotely SUGGESTS that's it's use.. it's a "pure" application with no slant on what kind of data it should be used for.
You have the freedom to have any functionality you want from your software.. but for the author of bittorrent to take it and turn it into a full on p2p app would be to invite trouble in the current political climate, because, despite what freedoms you think you deserve, the big boys WILL come down on him.
As it is now, he has a *VERY* clear defense; teh application is extremely general purpose. THe only reason there are warez sites with bittorrent now are because of the organized efforts of others.
First, we should stop calling bittorrent "p2p". That brings up too many bad connotations. It's NOT a filesharing service.
YES, many are using it as a warez service right now.. but ultimately, this is JUST like offering the files for download themselves.. just a bit more abstraction. Instead of offering a file for download, you are offering a meta-file that describes where to download the file.
Yes, bittorrent is awesome.. for distributed downloadnig.. it's one of those things that just makes sense on the internet: If a bunch of people want a big file, why not have all the people currently downloading it help each other out with the download, to relieve congestion on the main link? It makes perfect sense, and it works equally well for any kind of file.
Yeah, there has been an absllute orgy of open warez trading.. but that's ONLY because they can now download faster and keep up with the load.it's got nothing to do with sharing files over bittorrent.. if anything, putting up downloads with bittorrent is more involved than just putting up a file.
It's like blaming HTTP for early warez trading over the net.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously... but that doesn't change the fact that IBM may be liable for leaking the secret in the first place.
If you leak some company's secret, you can be in shit, even if the company can no longer control that information once it's out.. YOU are still responsible for the leak, and will pay.
because we don't KNOW what code they are talking about, and we don't know whether or not it's actually for sure in the unix code that is out there... we don't know if they worked on somethign internally with IBM as part of the project and IBM leaked it, or what.
That will all come out, in time.
Isn't much harder? On the contrary
it's affected by FAR more things
What if you are behind a NAT box or proxy that won't allow you to use most VPN software?
What if you don't have remote superuser access?
etc..etc... etc...
This is so you can mount anything you have ssh shell access to... that is a WORLD different than setting up a ssh/ppp vpn.
As for "network adminsitrators" not liking it.. if we don't like it, we don't let you VPN into our secure netowrks in the first place.
SUre..... but if that "entire world" Is.. say..CHINA and the rest of southeast asia.. it's not exactly a little world, is it.
.com during the boom, which was an artificial demand, there was tons of DNS space, and no real REASON to fork off an alternate DNS sysetm.. the same goes for routes.. we are getting tighter, but still have room to grow, and things can be rearranged as necessary.
This is getting out of hand.. the point is that the only thing that binds people to recognizing the same authority with regards to IP address allocation is the desire to interoprate, and not being in your own " little world" as you put it.
If a large enough region feelt that they were not getting what they needed to do what they wanted, ignoring those allocations would be a possibility. Yes, it woudl confine them.. but let's get real hypothetical:
Forget IPv6 for a minute.
Let's say that China, India, and the rest of southeast asia run out of IP addresses, and the regulatory bodies are too slow and beurocratic, and basically refuse to give them more. So let's say they take a few class A spaces that are currently reserved or not in use, and the ISPs in the region agree on how to route them, and start using them. Now, all of southeast asia can use these new addresses to internetwork.. the rest of the world is just refusing ot use it. Now, a major ISP in the US and Europe might say "You know what, fuck it, nobody else is using it.. I'm gonna recognize that route, and deal with it. I can always change it later"... and so on. Eventually, it becomes in use.
Yes, of course, that's unlikely... but the fact is... we only recognize these authorities so long as they are useful to us, and if they aren't, we can start recognizign one that is. Fundamentally DNS works.. aside from everyone wanting a
If it's not proper, feel free to start your own search engine, eh?
Google didn't abuse monopoly power to get where they are; they have not in any way coerced or threatened any other search engine, they simply made a search system that was innovative, unique, and desirable to people. They didn't rest their success on marketing, or anything else but pure technological innovation.
Now, I don't think google can do no wrong, they are a company, they have a bottom line... but so far, the reason they are on top is because google provides the results we want. EVery other search engine, if you don't remember, provided CRAP for links, either irrelevant, or paid placements.
Pagerank isnt' patented, is it? Got a patent number? I'd like to read how it works.
I thought the pagerank formula was secret...
They feel this way because google is so popular that, with some businesses online, google can make or break you. I have a friend who has a business, and how much money he makes in a month is directly related to his pagerank. Now, he understands that google re-indexes all the time, and that things are tweaked all the time, and that google owes him nothing... but in the end, it's still important to him what his pagerank is, and he will do what he has to do in order to get that number higher.
Perhaps Novell knew the diminished value of their UNIX rights, and figured selling licensing rights to Caldera (SCO) would make more sense? All they did was retain their own copyrights, so they can ultimately still license it to someone else, and work on unix stuff on their own without fear.
As for those rights.. if IBM suddently held those rights, by acquiring them from Novell, they would still be in court, as this is about a contract violation.
Well, it's not that simple either...
There are several ways this can go.
IF this comes down to patents, which is unlikely, then every copy of linux using the patented method would be in violation, and SCO could force everyone to stop using that method (in theory, anyway). This is highly unlikely, and they haven't mentioned patents yet. Furthermore, if it was about patents, there would be no reason to keep it secret before trial.. as their methods would be protected no matter what.
If it comes down to Copyright, IBM would pay damages, but the rest of the world would not be guilty of anything; pretend for a minute it's not Linux, but some version of OS/2. Would everyone who IBM sold OS/2 to have to stop using it or face legal action? Hardly. OF course, linux being free, it's a bit different.. but fundamentally, it's the same. And I'm sure the community would happily re-write the offending section, or find some code that pre-dates it and work from that, to be fair.
What is most likely, and what SCO seems to be saying, is this is trade-secret stuff. The thing about trade secret is, it only applies to secrets. That's what the NDAs and other contracts are for... so if IBM leaked proprietary methods (NOT patents... just thigns where two parties agree to keep it a secret) into the linux kernel, then they violated a contract... and they will pay damages. However, again, the rest of the community faces no threat. Trade secret laws are NOT patent laws, they don't afford you protection of something indefinately.. they only let you keep somethign a secret. If it's in the linux kernel, it's just not a secret anymore. If you leak a trade secret, say the formula for Coca-Cola, to usenet, you are gonna be in deep shit, trade secret laws will down on you, but coke has no way to stop the world from knowing about their formula now, and can't prevent someone from using it.. that's why they KEEP IT A SECRET... made in parts by separate companies, mixed at the factory, with the forumla only known to a couple people, and the files locked in some super secret vault guarded by alligators.
Linus, and anyone else, who wants to compare the SCO code (Copywritten, possibly but unlikely full of SCO's "secrets") to linux (which anyone and his dog can see anytime with no hassle) need to sign an NDA. Why?
The same reason that sco hasn't told us what code is infringing. If we put aside the fact that SCO's unix products are all the worst crap I've ever had to use, and that it's extremely doubtful they had any secrets, and just assume they DID have some secret method in there that had some value...
They can't just say "They stole our scheduler code!, on lines 12345 to 12500 of the 2.4.15 kernel!" Because... then everyone would KNOW The secret, and it would not be a secret anymore.
but the end result is the same: having stuff people want helps you get better downloads.
IT's *exactly* like saying InterNIC doesn't control DNS, and it's true.
.china, run their own root servers, have everyone in the country use them, and maybe it WOULD be used, because it fills a real honest NEED . Yes I know they have their own ccTLD.. this is just theory.
The reason nobody used the alternative DNS servers was because there was no real NEED or DEMAND for them. They didn't really fill a void.. they represented more pain than they were worth.
Now, let's say hypothetically China has some political issue with the DNS system... they could start
IF we really NEEDED to supersede what ICANN was doing, we could.
Yeah.. of course. The only way a patent is revoked is by the court.
My point is basically that invalidating a patent isn't just as simple as "find one guy who did this beforehand, and it's invalidated"
Intercepting cellular phone calls is legal in canada; our governmetn wasn't so naieve as to consider something broadcast over public airwaves with no encryption "private".
With digital this changes of course.
You will find the only country that bans listening to cellular phone calls, and bans selling scanners that allow those calls to be listeend to, is the United States
Because you can selectively enforce patents, you cannot sue for damages if the party was not aware they were infringing on your patent. You can of course set the terms goign forward they must adhere to, or get them to stop using it, or whatever.. but they can't exactly SUE linus for infringing on their patents withotu first making sure he is aware of what patents he is infringing on, and suggesting a remedy.
You can't find someone who has been using your patent, unknowingly, for 10 years then sue him for 10 years worth of damages, it doesn't work that way.
Actually.. they do.
Prior art is very misunderstood, I think
When you file a patent, you have to cite prior art... which is things related to what you are doing, in order to show how yours is different.
Usuually these are references to other patents, but other stuff can go in there too.
Now, if it is shown you LIED on your prior art declaration.. and you KNEW of others donig the same thing as yours, and left it out... your patent can be invalited.
On the other hand, if it merely turns out that some shepherd in khazakstan did something a year before you and never told anyone... my understandign is that won't invalidate your patent. You may not be able to enforce said patent on the shepherd... but your patent may still stand.
Yes, technically Novell may still be the actual copyright & patent holder.. but they DID license those to SCO, who has the ability to re-license all over the place.
Whether that boils down SCO having the right to enforce those patents and whatnot is another matter, and depends on the language of the contract, which we all don't have, so it's silly to speculate on.
What is clear is SCO had the right to relicense some unix stuff, and they of course have the right to enforce the terms of those licenses.
Whether or not they can attack other parties is a separate issue.
Linus doesn't sell linux. HE doesn't market it. He does kernel development, and his name is on it.. that's all.
Why shouldn't he be apathetic? SCO is getting far more attention than they deserve out of this.. at least in terms of the fear they are causing. There is NO WAY this case will succeed.. the absolute worst case will be IBM did something wrong, and IBM pays damages. No judge is going to smash linux.
What does linus have to fear? Can you imagine how much legal support Linus himself would get if sco tried to sue him personally? Just for what it represents, ever damn linux geek on earth would be ready to contribute to the defense fund, not to mention every linux company on earth. So far sco has ONLY SUED IBM, and have made only threatening vague statements and threats about their "Intellectual Property" to everyone else. Saying they had a contract with IBM that IBM has violated is one thing.. all the other vague shit they are claiming is something else entirely.
Linus has ALWAYS been apathetic. He has always mainted the world can do what it wants with linux.. he did it for fun. He doens't get too into the politics of it. He is a smart programmer, and a celebrity... but his life isn't riding on the success or faulure of linux. He isn't Bill Gates.
You are both correct.
As the language was different, and Virus was a "mass plural" and implies plurality.
Remember, they did not know about individual "viruses".. a virus was simply a bad substance. (slime, mold, etc)
Sort like how we would use "Decay" as a noun. "covered in decay".. it's neither singular or plural.
It was not "a virus" or "some viruses" just "virus"
It's not like words that are the same singular and plural.... like "deer".
No, it would not. It has never been "viri" other than by those who mistakenly think it's supposed to be that way, in MODERN times.
Latin already had a word viri, but it was the nominative plural not of virus (slime, poison, or venom), but of vir (man).
And although there actually is a viri form for virus, it's the genitive singular, not the nominative plural.
This apparently invariant use of virus as a genitive singular may also imply that it's 4th declension, as some scholars believe.
The crucial problem here is that, classically speaking, there appears to be no recorded use of virus in the plural. It was a 2nd declension noun ending in -us, which is rather common, but it was also a neuter, which is rather rare. I could only come up with three such 2nd declension neuters: virus (some poison), pelagus (the sea, usually poetically), and vulgus (the crowd). None appear to admit plurals. Perhaps this is because they are mass nouns, not count nouns.
Technically, nobody "OWNS" Ip addresses; it is a convention we all adhere to and everything works together.
If, say, China just took a few class A spaces belonging to companies they don't care about in the US, and started using them internally, and even if a few other countries started agreeing with them, there would be no problem. As long as you don't go announcing routes to others in violation of how they want to do things, you are fine.
Nothing at the IANA forces anyone to use a certain address; they don't controll routing.. they just say who owns what, and those with the power to route defer to that to decide if they should do something or not.
And it should be.. why should they be forced to use ancient and expensive technologies on the back end?
This isn't even super high tech or anything.. it's just that phone companies have a level of service to provide, and making big changes takes big planning.
WE waste way too much bandwidth on voice.
Do you have patents on any of this technology. I recall talk in the past of "Swarming" patents and whatnot.
Do you have plans to make money off this, or is your interest purely technological?
you'll see that if you upload, you get faster downloads; this is not because of how your client works, but how other clients work. Clients exchange bits on a one-for-one basis when they both don't have the full file.
This means that once you have the full file, you just upload to people, as you don't need any parts.. but as long as a client needs chunks, it only sends a chunk when it receives one (sort of). The effect is exactly what is desired.
The reason throttling is in there in new clients is because network situations are often assymetric, and you NEED to be able to somewhat control how much bandwidth is used, in either direction, to get optimal use.
If you firewall off your uploads, your downloads wsill suck in bittorrent.
No..
Bittorrent is a way to increase file transfer speeds through cooperation, and has nothing to do with "file sharing".
The thing is, as much as we say "napster could have been used to send legal files" we all know it's BULLSHIT. Sure, it could.. but it's primary purpose, and primary effect, was to help people break the law. The *reality* was that a great many people used it to break the law. The same goes for most other file sharing services.
In this case, we have bittorrent, which is NOT a filesharing service, just a way to to get faster downloads if you want to distribute something.. and that's all it should be. There is no way anyone can blame bittorrent for all the warez activities, as nothing in it's makeup even remotely SUGGESTS that's it's use.. it's a "pure" application with no slant on what kind of data it should be used for.
You have the freedom to have any functionality you want from your software.. but for the author of bittorrent to take it and turn it into a full on p2p app would be to invite trouble in the current political climate, because, despite what freedoms you think you deserve, the big boys WILL come down on him.
As it is now, he has a *VERY* clear defense; teh application is extremely general purpose. THe only reason there are warez sites with bittorrent now are because of the organized efforts of others.
First, we should stop calling bittorrent "p2p". That brings up too many bad connotations. It's NOT a filesharing service.
YES, many are using it as a warez service right now.. but ultimately, this is JUST like offering the files for download themselves.. just a bit more abstraction. Instead of offering a file for download, you are offering a meta-file that describes where to download the file.
Yes, bittorrent is awesome.. for distributed downloadnig.. it's one of those things that just makes sense on the internet: If a bunch of people want a big file, why not have all the people currently downloading it help each other out with the download, to relieve congestion on the main link? It makes perfect sense, and it works equally well for any kind of file.
Yeah, there has been an absllute orgy of open warez trading.. but that's ONLY because they can now download faster and keep up with the load.it's got nothing to do with sharing files over bittorrent.. if anything, putting up downloads with bittorrent is more involved than just putting up a file.
It's like blaming HTTP for early warez trading over the net.